linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b962df63-42c4-4bc9-9815-9871be1ce2d5@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 07:54:21 -0800
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: Avri Altman <Avri.Altman@....com>,
 "Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>
Cc: "linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
 "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] scsi: ufs: critical health condition

On 2/6/25 12:54 AM, Avri Altman wrote:
> After some further internal discussions: The set conditions are
> vendor specific; The device may set it as many times it wants
> depending on its criticality. The spec does not define that nor what
> the host should do. So there is this concern that some vendors will
> report multiple times, while other wont. Hence, reading
> critical_health = 1 might be misleading. What do you think?

How about emitting a uevent if a critical health condition has been
reported by a UFS device? See also sdev_evt_send().

Thanks,

Bart.